-Removed-"Morally bankrupt" is a phrase tossed around in this forum by those who would exalt themselves over others. As such, it's totally lost its meaning. I have not "compromised my principles" nor do I "lack the courage to say what I believe". One would think that this might be clear by now.
Yes, I am an "annihilationist" rather than a believer of "eternal torment". I believe the souls of those found wanting at Judgement (those not found written in the Book of Life) will be sent to a "lake of fire" that will burn them up and this results in the "second death", or the death of the soul. The concept of "eternal torment" doesn't make a lot of sense to me. But on the other side of the argument, I also believe that God's decision to remove the threat of those people living in Canaan (those who took advantage and moved in and took the land from Abraham's descendants when the Hebrews were in Egypt) when the Hebrews arrived from their time in Egypt was righteous (no matter that some others in this forum call that position "indefensible" also). I am not so sure that the teaching of "eternal torment" IS "indefensible". A case could certainly be made for it, and it would fall in line with the righteousness of God given in other examples (see above). We can certainly stand around and call God "morally bankrupt" all day long, but this of course does not mean that he is. His ways are not our ways. God is not man, and man is not God, they cannot be judged together in any similar way at all. If God decides that sending non-believers for "eternal torment" is righteous, then I am simply not equipped to argue with him. God cannot abide sin, and nothing God does can be called "sin" or "sinful". And whatever God chooses to do with them, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. It's his call, not mine. I don't think he would send people to "eternal torment" when he could just end their existence, but I could be wrong.
"it is you who repeatedly "lambasts" Rakj999, calling him a "hypocrite" and writing lengthy posts attacking his beliefs, and yet you attack me for attacking sonship because you think you think what he believes is "completely normal"." and "So who's the hypocrite?"
If there's any "hypocrisy" here, it might be that I attack Rajk for having "fringe" beliefs (that no Christian I know of supports), while I myself have the "fringe" belief (which a fair number of Christians believe also) of not believing in the concept of "eternal torment". It's just that I consider the topic of "salvation" a bit more important than where non-believers' souls end up after Judgement: "eternal torment" vs. "annihilation". Whichever it is, it probably won't affect anyone's salvation, and it is altogether possible that I could be wrong. I'd just rather talk about more interesting topics, like the "Good News" of salvation vs. taking other Christians to task publicly for believing what most Christians believe and what has been our religion's dogma for at least a couple thousand years.
You err if you think I attack your beliefs. I only attack your method of tilting at the mainstream windmill. Forum combat is fun and all, but it's most often done for the lulz and not for important topics. As lemon lime has said, you ask the same questions repeatedly, regardless of answer, hoping to finally hear what you want to hear. The tactics of FMF don't serve you very well here. In this forum, we Christians speak from the heart, sharing what we believe to be true. Arguing in the manner of those who argue just to seem better than others isn't really supposed to be an issue for us. "That's not what we do" and "That's not what we are about" leap to mind, here.
-Removed-I told you what I meant and why.
Do I need to repeat myself, like you and FMF do, in order to get the idea across? Do you need to hear it again? Ok, fine...
You err if you think I attack your beliefs. I only attack your method of tilting at the mainstream windmill. Forum combat is fun and all, but it's most often done for the lulz and not for important topics. As lemon lime has said, you ask the same questions repeatedly, regardless of answer, hoping to finally hear what you want to hear. The tactics of FMF don't serve you very well here. In this forum, we Christians speak from the heart, sharing what we believe to be true. Arguing in the manner of those who argue just to seem better than others isn't really supposed to be an issue for us. "That's not what we do" and "That's not what we are about" leap to mind, here.
And I daresay that this is precisely what lemon lime is "taking you to task" over, as well.
I "lay into" people for certain reasons, yet endlessly, I get people maligning those reasons, regardless of what I say, usually to suit their own ends. Did I not say you err if you think I attack your beliefs? How many times do I have to say it? I attack your methods. And I even mentioned how I am not so certain as you that I am right. And you would rather attach all kinds of external motivations to what I say. No principles? You know far better than that.
1 edit
-Removed-I think sometimes you refuse to listen to what they are saying. You have this bug up your butt about long posts, and if someone posts one, your eyes glaze over, and you just pass it by, only to ask them again a few posts later.
If someone says "On this matter I believe God. I believe the Bible." I'm pretty sure that what they are saying is that you can jot down on your little list keeping track of what others believe (like a scorecard of who you can attack for not believing as you do) that they believe exactly what the mainstream believes about whatever that topic is. To some, the Bible seems quite clear that it means what everybody else thinks it means, and when they say something like "I believe what God says in the Bible", then this is what they mean. Unless directly asked, it is NOT up to those in the mainstream to defend their beliefs. For those of us on the "fringe" it is up to us to convince others, not the other way around. They already hold the majority opinion.
As evidence for what I say, I'm pretty sure that both josephw and lemon lime agree with the mainstream and believe in the doctrine of "eternal torment" for unrepentant sinners (which includes non-believers, btw). In fact, I'd go so far as to say that KellyJay and sonship also believe it, and that they all (all 4 of these) share the same opinion of homosexuality, abortion, gay marriage and evolution. Not so sure about YEC, I'm guessing they would split 2-2 on that one. They can both chime in here with their statements of disagreement if I have their positions wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm right. They call it the "mainstream" for a reason. The "mainstream" IS what most people (the majority) believe.
-Removed-"I see you have appointed yourself as spokesperson for your group of "we Christians". Do you include me in that group? Do you include Rajk999? Do you include robbie carrobie?"
Yes, you, me, Rajk, robbie. All Christians. When I say "we Christians", obviously I am talking about "all Christians". I'm obviously part of that group, and so I use the pronoun "we". Don't go this way. This is how FMF argues, with semantics. What I mean is like that commercial for "Hebrew National Hot Dogs"... "We answer to a higher authority."
"Are those who call me: a christian basher, a wolf in sheep's clothing, more dangerous than satan, undermining the faith of Christians, attacking the teachings of Christianity, also part of this group and do they "speak from the heart, sharing what they believe to be true"?
Clearly, if they are Christian, then they are included. My point is that Christians, as a group, and especially when they speak to one another, don't make a point of "lying". We understand the injunction against "bearing false witness". And it's not exactly part of "loving your neighbor".
And still, it's my contention that you receive this negative attention due mainly to your *methods*, NOT your *message*.
"Your hypocrisy is choking, but amusing nonetheless."
Sorry, I don't see the hypocrisy. If you think I'm lying, then come right out and say I'm lying, don't couch it in weaker words.